Since the first Blair
administration in 1997 skilled UK workers particularly in the IT industry have been
shafted by Governments of all the main parties, the executive, businesses and
their lobbyists.

Through a combination of
outsourcing, offshoring and onshoring, many thousands of IT jobs have been lost
to the lie that there is a skills shortage in IT which can only be addressed by
tens of
thousands of migrant workers. Many of these migrant workers, onshored into
the UK by their sponsors can work here virtually Tax and NI free. Not even the
Treasury benefits, yet the Treasury understands how this works and is content
to let it go unchallenged. It is after all Government policy, just like their
objection to changing the minimum steel tariffs.

Gaming the system - how it works

Companies who onshore Intra-Company
transfer (ICT) workers have to show the worker will be paid the rate for the
job when applying for the work visa. Under Border Agency rules salary and other
payments made to these workers are grouped together into a 'Salary Package' and checked against this job rate. What is not
generally known is that the Border
Agency allows the inclusion of business expenses into this 'Salary Package'. Business expenses are
not considered taxable by HMRC as they are not a component of taxable pay. These
expenses are incurred in performing the job and are received tax free by the
ICT migrant worker (as is the case for all workers receiving
such business expenses – not all workers from April 2016).

Allowing tax free
business expenses to count towards the salary rate for the job, required to
issue the visa may not seem significant but it is key to undermining the whole
ICT route. This concession allows companies with access to
cheap offshore workers, to undercut resident workers and business competitors,
and avoid paying significant amounts of tax and NI to the Treasury.

It should come as no surprise that these
rules have acted as a financial incentive for foreign service companies
to onshore cheap workers into the UK, rather than employ or train resident
workers instead. The greater the difference between a migrant
workers pay and that of a UK worker, the greater the incentive to onshore.
For Indian workers who make up the majority of ICT workers coming into the UK,
pay differentials of 8 to 1 are common UK pay rates,Indian pay rates.

This arrangement also provides an arm’s
length way for many well known UK
businesses to use such workers by proxy. When businesses
have positions which they have not already offshored or they have a major
project requiring resources, they simply outsource the roles or work to foreign service
companies, who can then onshore their workers into the UK to work ‘on-client
contract’. It is very damaging to resident workers and resident services
companies who are displaced. It leads to a de-skilling of the UK resident
workforce because they are shut out of these positions. Resident companies who
compete in this space with these foreign service companies
are at a substantial disadvantage, as they have to pay the true taxable salary
rate to their employees, plus the business expenses incurred in performing
their role.

In 2010 the Migration Advisory Committee
(MAC) recommended that, tax-free allowances should be excluded when calculating
points for earnings under the points based system for intra-company transfer
workers, due to significant loss of tax revenue and the undercutting of
resident workers and business which could occur (see page 260 para
9.166 and 9.167). The Government response to this advice was to
ignore the MAC (Immigration questions
Lord Laird WA340).

That decision, announced by Baroness Neville-Jones in the
House of Lords on 22nd December 2010, has cost the Treasury a
minimum of £1.25 Billion but is probably nearer £2.5 Billion over the course of
the last parliament. From an employment perspective tens of thousands of jobs,
which UK residents could have done, or have been trained to do have gone to migrant
workers instead.

(e)Recommend
that HMRC and the Home Office work together to consider whether the current tax
provisions made available for allowances, and the exemption of national
insurance contributions, are working in the interests of the UK.

To be
reviewed……… - We will review the extent to which
allowances may be counted as salary to ensure we have appropriate safeguards in
place against undercutting of the resident labour market and consider how to
take forward the MAC’s proposal for a review of skills in the IT sector.

Whilst the review
takes place the weekly loss to exchequer will be £10m+, annually £500m+ and if
they do not address this issue at all the loss will be £2.5 billion+ over the
course of this parliament.

The
Governments response to the MAC report could be politely described as timid.
Why wait until April 2017 to implement some of these changes? Autumn 2016, 6
months, £250m+ of lost revenue is ample time and cost to wait.

For many a career in IT has become
precarious choice, so much so that in
an O2 survey
in June 2014 10% of Parents 'actively discourage' careers in IT.
That survey should be a wake-up call to the Government. People have seen that the
Government isn't interested in a level playing field. Their voices on this
issue are ignored, the Government contents itself with the view of big business
and their suppliers and consequently people are voting with their feet, a
career in IT is too risky.

Excluding tax free allowances from inclusion in the ‘Salary
Package’ by the Border Agency will not be a disaster for businesses or their
suppliers. The world didn’t end when this issue was addressed by Canada in 2014
or Australia in 2012. In Canada a country often held up as an example of having
an open work visa system they tightened
up the assessment of ICTs entering Canada, ensuring with immediate effect
in June 2014, that the salary or wage of ICT workers would have to be above the
average salary for the role and that business expenses incurred in performing
their duties were not to be included in the overall calculation of the salary
or wage.

Contrary to reports in the media backthemac.com is not
against Intra-Company Transfers.We seek
reform of Border Agency rules to level the playing field with resident workers,
so that ICT workers who do come here, are here because
they are key workers not cheap workers. Ensuring such workers are paid a true
market rate, taxable salary is a key step to achieving that goal – in many
cases those workers will appreciate the pay rise ;)

Proposed
changes to Tier 2 design to prevent undercutting

Recent revelations of Volkswagen
cheating the emission standards show the lengths organisations are prepared to
go to, to maintain an unfair advantage. The
Tier-2 system needs to be rebalanced so that it is fair to resident workers, companies
and the exchequer. Compliance also needs to be effective with the burden
shifted from the Border Agency to sponsor companies.

This can be achieved with the
following changes and there is no reason why they cannot be implemented from Autumn 2016.

1.Exclude
tax-free allowances when calculating points for earnings under the points based
system. This rule is currently being operated by the Border Agency and applies
to chefs (SOC 5434 pg 12), it should be extended to all occupation codes.

2.At
the moment no NI is paid by workers or their employers where they are here for
less than 12 months (Exceptions
to NICs). NI should be paid by all ICT workers and their employers
but at the lower contracted out rate so there are no pension accrual
obligations. As NI will now be paid, the immigration health surcharge should be dropped.

3.Compliance
that employers are actually paying the rates on the COS application is
ineffective (Techsense Ltd). The
current model where the Border Agency samples a minimal number of employers for
compliance should be replaced. The burden of proof should rest with the
sponsor. This can be achieved by requiring employers to submit to the Border
Agency the same information they have to send to the tax authorities each year
when they do their employers PAYE annual returns. If a worker is paid in the UK
and also in their home country then the equivalent information which is sent to
the home country tax authorities, should also be provided to the Border Agency.
An exception to this rule could be made where the taxable pay in the UK is
above the taxable 'salary package' limit, in which case just the UK PAYE end of
year return details will be sufficient.

Border Agency
compliance officers will then be able to match what has been declared on the
COS against what was actually declared to the tax authorities. As companies
already submit this information to their tax authorities sending the same
information to the Border Agency should not be a great administrative burden
for them.

If you
think your MP might be interested in the undercutting of resident workers and
loss of revenue which the current rules allow let them know viawww.writetothem.com.